Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Live from Iran, Film88

Posted by michael on from the get-it-while-it's-hot dept.

MemFun writes "The now defunct Movie88.com has became Film88.com. These are the guys that are streaming a ton of movies for $1 a piece (but not allowing you to save the movie). Of course, to avoid all the Tinsel Town Club baddies (mpaa) from shutting them down, they are now based in Iran of all places. We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering. Question: Does this make me a criminal? I really like the selection of movies they have and stream or not, it's still pretty cool to have the ability to watch some those movies that are never on TV any more."

52 of 620 comments (clear)

  1. Didnt detect my RealPlayer by xtremex · · Score: 3, Informative

    With Mozilla on Linux, film88 didnt detect my RealPlayer plugin. I have to find a way to bypass their JavaScript...

    --
    If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    1. Re:Didnt detect my RealPlayer by bupernfut · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rename "rpnp.so" to "RealPlayer.so" and make sure it is executable.
      #mv rpnp.so RealPlayer.so
      #chmod +x RealPlayer.so

      I found this in the Real forums. Works great.

  2. Doesn't Iran have pretty strict censorship? by ThinkingGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful


    I can't help but wonder, will this service be available in Iran itself? How many of the movies offered online are illegal to watch in Iran (for promoting "sex," "immorality," and being "anti-Islamic?") Will local religious fundementalists shut down the service before the MPAA can?

    1. Re:Doesn't Iran have pretty strict censorship? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      will they be available anywhere for atleast the next couple hours.

      "I feel a great disturbance in the webserver. As if a million geeks just hit our site, then suddenly silence. We must have been posted on slashdot."

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  3. It'll be down soon by bubblegoose · · Score: 5, Funny

    Notice how the author says "We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering"

    Then he submits the story.
    Smart guy...it'll be /.'ed soon.

    --
    I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people. - Jack Handey
  4. the low down by Telastyn · · Score: 3, Informative

    ianal, but:

    You are not in violation of copyright. You may be in violation of a law which makes it unlawful to knowingly conspire to commit copyright violation by the Iranians. The Iranians are not in violation of copyright if they aquired the films in Iran, as Iran afact does not respect American copyright.

  5. Re:IRaN?! by perlyking · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might find Iran has better internet connectivity than where you live! Last I heard there was 5Mbps wireless and you could buy prepay internet cards (aswell as normal ISPS).

    --
    no sig.
  6. well...you should only support it... by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 5, Funny

    you should only support the site if it funnels any money made to nicaraguan rebels to help fight the good fight.

  7. Pity.. by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a pity that Film88.com's going to get my money instead of the MPAA.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Pity.. by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of the MPAA simply deciding they don't want to provide a service for us. They can legally make movies available, there are lots of drugs out there that cannot be sold without a prescription.

      Not exactly apples to apples, is it?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  8. Re:Business with Iran... by hpa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The point was: if you are an Iranian company, and send a bill to MasterCard in New York, they are *required* to ignore it and not to pay. Although you probably can get around it for some time, it's by and large a "sticky bit", i.e. if you're a German compnay who acts as an in-between, pretty soon you'll find yourself on the U.S. gov't ban list...

  9. Re:Let's be reasonable by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would agree with you, except that the MPAA's not providing a similar service! I want to view movies on the web for a reduced price. They won't give me that because they assume I'm a criminal. So not only are they not responding to consumer demand, they're insulting me in the process.

    Come to think of it, I think intertainer.tv might be supported by the MPAA. Not sure, though. It's easy to overlook it when you have Senator Disney trying to pass heavy handed legislation to put a stop to it.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  10. Re:Let's be reasonable by seizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But isn't it interesting, that in their FAQ they murmur about trying to make alliances with content owners, in order to compensate them for the business they transact?

    Also, I'm not 100% sure that Iran is a signatory to the international copyright laws anyway. So what exactly the MPAA could do is unclear...

  11. Re:Let's be reasonable by rosewood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How are they any different then blockbuster? You can't copy these movies and you arent suposed to copy the ones from blockbuster - and I would wager more people have access to VCRs and blockbusters then computers with net connections to do this.

    They obviously bought the movie and now they rent it out

    What did I miss? Oh, its digital so its evil

    --
    The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
  12. Re:Let's be reasonable by Brolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means. I'd write more but that's pretty much my entire point.

  13. How did you pay them? by unitron · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The ZDNet article doesn't say how that $1 is transferred (and I'm not going to wait all afternoon for the site itself to load), so how did you pay them? Surely you wouldn't give your credit card number to a site in Iran with no scruples about selling what they don't own.

    Whatever method you used, look for the MPAA to try to interfere with it, or get the government to do the interfering.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  14. "I helped kill a judge" by cpeterso · · Score: 3, Offtopic


    have you seen those TV commercials about buying drugs "helps kill judges" because you are funding terrorists? These commercials forget to mention that:

    • buying drugs might actually fund the CIA
    • buying gasoline for your AmeriKKKan car might actually fund Middle Eastern terrorists

    --
    cpeterso
  15. Legit movie site... by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hey dudes,

    There's a site called http://www.intertainer.tv where you can watch movies and TV shows. The prices are higher, but they've been around since last Oct or Nov. I've used them a couple of times and they're not too bad.

    I think the price for movies is a bit high, but I'm willing to support this site. I'd like to prove to the industries involved that I'll pay for content I'm interested in.

    It's worth a gander if you're remotely interested in this stuff. You can find out if it'll suit you or not before you pay anything. (They have previews for movies etc, all for free.)

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  16. This is never what software libre stood for by Kiwi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Since there is yet another Slashdot stoty about how to obtain copyrighted content without authorization, I think I should clarify something here.

    There a a big difference between the philosophies of the software libre movement and the philosophies of people who copy files without the copyright holder's authorization.

    Software libre is not about this. Yeah, RMS rants about how it would be nice if copyrights did not exist, but I don't think he would want to be in such a world. I do not think I would want to be in such a world myself. There is content out there that down right takes a lot of money to create. Movies. Music that uses an orchestra or session players. Video games. Content that would not exist in a world without copyrights.

    Now, one of the things I love about the internet is that there is a lot of really great content out there which the copyright owners freely shares. mp3.com has a lot of really talented bands giving their music away (it's a shame that mp3.com is a borderline spamhaus; if you give them your email address, even when emailing a band to say you like their music, you end up on mp3.com's spam list). The whole software libre thing is about giving away some excellent software. Many authors are giving away their books. Free home-made movies. And so on.

    There is enough free content out there that, dare I say, I do not think anyone needs to download copyrighted content without authorization to have a compelling internet existance. So it puzzles me that Slashdot continually links to "file sharing" programs and to pirates who share content without authorization.

    I completely agree that the RIAA and the MPAA have always been overzealous about copyrights. The HRAA was an abomination; it killed the consumer DAT. As an electronic musician in the early 1990s that had to spend $1200 instead of $300-$600 for a digital tape deck because of the RIAA's actions, I am no friend of their copyright overzealousness.

    However, the path of civil disobediance is not to copy movies en masse so that people can view movies without paying for them. Such self serving actions do not look very good in the harsh light of the courtroom; I think such activities contribute to the large number of lost court cases which are trying to fight the abomination called the DMCA.

    If you wish to fight the DMCA and the even more evil children of the DMCA, it is important to make a clear stand that we are against this because the law is wrong, not because it gets in the way of having our pirated content fix.

    - Sam

    --

    The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

    1. Re:This is never what software libre stood for by foobar104 · · Score: 3

      Wow. I'm used to people saying that free software is a bad business model and an unsound practice. I don't think I've ever encountered such a vehement, emotion-charged stand, though. In all seriousness, why do you "hate it, haite, hate it" so much?

      Thanks for asking in a civil manner. I'm pleasantly surprised. ;-)

      Before I get into this, please understand that I'm not really looking for an argument. If you disagree with my ideas, you're naturally welcome to say so, but if you do you probably won't get a satisfactory response out of me. I apologize in advance for any frustration this may cause.

      (Much of this comes from reading this, and RMS's other writings. Any misunderstanding on my part of RMS's philosophy is all his fault. Just kidding.)

      First, know that I make my living by writing and selling software. That is, I write it, and my company sells it. We don't sell support, or training, or services. We sell software, plain and simple. This should tell you something about my point of view.

      Now, on to the argument. The following are points on which RMS and I do not see eye-to-eye.

      I believe that personal gain is a perfectly legitimate motivation. Just like anything else, too much of it is a bad thing. But to the extent that one's actions don't violate any laws, social norms, or moral or ethical guidelines, acting in one's own best interest is entirely appropriate.

      I believe that the creators of computer programs own their creations. This is no different than any other type of creation. If I weave a basket, I own that basket. If I bake some bread, I own that bread. If my friend and I build a house together, we own that house jointly, unless we agree to some other arrangement. And if I write a computer program, I own that program's source code.

      I believe that the owner of a computer program has the right to sell it. Specifically, the owner has the right to require everybody who uses the program to give the owner some money in return. In that situation, the owner of the program is entitled to receive that amount of money from every person who uses the program.

      I believe that, in the above situation, if a person uses the program without paying the owner, the user is stealing the use of that program from the owner. I believe that this is theft, plain and simple.

      I believe that all of the aforementioned things are true in an absolute sense, despite any possible harmful effects that may be attributed to them. The doctrine of personal property naturally implies scarcity and inequity. That doesn't make it any less so. Any discussion of a world in which the doctrine of property does not govern men's affairs moves out of the applied and into the abstract, and so is outside the scope of my interest. In other words, there's a time and place for talking about how things should or could be, but in discussing matters of policy or normative guidelines of behavior, it's far more important to talk about how they are.

      So it should be clear by now that RMS and I couldn't disagree much more than we do. If that were the extent of it, then everything would be fine, and I would simply try to ignore RMS as much as possible.

      But that's not the extent of it. The more I read RMS's writings, the more I find that they have moved out of the realm of pure philosophy and into the arena of hard-core propaganda. Consider the first two paragraphs of "Why Software Should Not Have Owners."

      Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us. Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs ``owners'', most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.

      Notice the use of language here. RMS carefully and deliberately establishes, at the very beginning of his essay, an "us-verus-them" situation. He describes owners-- notice his use of quotation marks, a subtle trick to discredit the term-- as being people who "aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public." This kind of statement is wildly inaccurate and incomplete. It's also one tiny mustache away from being a great example of Godwin's Law. This is propaganda, plain and simple.

      The rest of it carries on in the same vein-- ownership and property rights are inherently evil-- for page after page. Here's a particularly telling example from the same document:

      All four practices [of the Software Publisher's Association] resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as ``samizdat''.

      RMS is quick to associate the Software Publisher's Association with totalitarianism and oppression. He uses this rhetorical technique time and time again in his writings to cast aspersions on his opponents by associating them with well-known evils. Here he associates the assertion of ownership rights with blasphemy:

      The term ``creator'' as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity (``the creator''). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors' moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors.

      This kind of rhetorical misdirection is found throughout RMS's published writings. When I see an author trying to persuade me emotionally rather than through reason or logic, it makes me suspicious.

      So first, I disagree with RMS's ideas. Then, I am personally concerned by the tone and technique of his writings. But the last straw, for me, is what I consider to be the deliberate and calculated misapplication of the words "free" and "freedom."

      RMS's definition of the term "free software" is so counter-intuitive and complex that it requires its own web page to define. It basically boils down like this: "free software," under RMS's definition, is quite thoroughly restricted in its use and distribution.

      This is especially true of software like GNU Readline. Readline is a library; programmers are supposed to link the Readline library to their programs and call Readline functions from within their code. Readline is licensed under the GPL, and as such, any software that is linked to it must also be licensed under the GPL. (Note that this is distinctly different from the LGPL, although that license has serious restrictions as well.)

      I have personal experience with this. Two years ago I was assigned the task of rewriting a large portion of one of my company's products to remove dependencies on Readline. The details of the GPL had not been sufficiently understood by our company's legal department, and approval had been given to use Readline in our program. Naturally we had no intention of releasing our software under the GPL, so we had no choice but to remove Readline from our program completely. This cost us a deadline, and several weeks of work.

      These restrictions are carefully hidden under the banner "free software." Orwell could have taken lessons from RMS's use of newspeak here. "This license seriously restricts what you can and can't do with your program. We will therefore call it 'free.'"

      This has gone on far too long, so I'll just stop here and sum up.

      1. RMS and I do not agree on the basic assumptions of his philosophy.

      2. RMS's writings are laced with rhetorical propaganda techniques that simply could not have crept in there by accident. This leads me to wonder why he chooses to resort to these techniques if he truly believes himself to be in the right, and to suspect that we might not know everything about his true agenda.

      3. RMS's use of the word "free" to describe GPL-licensed software is deceptive. This blatant use of the word "free" in a misleading way really makes me angry.

      All of these things, plus a few I didn't take the time to mention, have led me to "hate, hate, hate" RMS's beliefs, the GNU organization, and the Free Software Foundation, and to vocally oppose all that they stand for.

      (Now I sit back and watch my karma evaporate.)

  17. Re:How sad... by captain_craptacular · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thats not exactly correct. Iran just has a hypocritical government which is perfectly willing to tell its citizens one thing and then sell out to some corporation for money. Thats not at all like the system we have in the US!

    --
    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security
  18. OMG Do you know what we just did!!!! by cOdEgUru · · Score: 5, Funny

    Film88 offers new movies at 1 dollar a piece for streaming.

    MPAA and its cronies have a fit. Huddle together to see whats the best they could do. Disagree on forcing Bush to send a SAM in to the heart of Iran

    Jack Valenti registers on Slashdot with a new nick "MemFun", posts the story on Slashdot

    Sits back and waits till Film88 gets slashdotted in to oblivion.

    Laughs, walks away holding the hand of a 20 something.

    --
    Rapid Nirvana
  19. Are you a legal man, or a moral man? by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A friend of mine (who, believe it or not, is a lawyer) asked this question of someone not long ago, in an attempt to help him see that his justifications were just that - justifications.

    The MPAA is bad. I'd wager most of the technology-literate world has figured that out by now. They're moneygrubbing monopolists, no doubt about it.

    The current system of copyright and distribution is broken - no doubt about it.

    But when you steal something, you're still stealing it. No amount of arguments about how the Iranians don't subscribe to international patent law, or about the fact that Film88 bought the movies and are just renting them, will change that.

    So through some miracle of legal justification, you may in fact not be breaking the law. That's for the courts (or politics) to decide. You're buying from a thief. That might not make you a thief by legal definition, but what does it make you by moral definition?

    Oh, wait. I forgot. We're all geeks here, so the only moral imperatives are: 1) information wants to be free, and 2) anyone trying to impede my freedom in any way is evil.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man? by michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have this argument completely backwards.

      Sharing information is clearly a moral and good thing to do. From the first monkey who let the other monkeys know about a tiger down by the river, humanity has *revered* the sharing of information. Only our system of laws makes it (sometimes) a bad thing to do.

      In this case the moral man sees nothing wrong with distributing information or with receiving information. The legal man sees that distributing the information in this manner would be illegal in the U.S., who knows in Iran.

      And both the moral and legal man know that there is no theft involved.

      1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
      taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
      to deprive the rightful owner of the same

    2. Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man? by FortranDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Morals are purely personal and can be revised at a moments notice to suit the individual. Arguing morals can be a fun thing to do, but in the end each side can quite correctly state they are moral based on their own personal code. Thus putting forth a moral argument about this matter is a mug's game.

      Whether it is a good thing, well, that depends. Sharing with an 11 year old a method of creating poisonous liquids is *NOT* a good thing. Much of what we deem good is situationally dependant.

      As far as US law goes, check out The 'No Electronic Theft' Act. It looks like the law considers this theft now.

      Also, the legal definition you quoted is correct, but not complete. You used the definition for larceny, but missed the ones for robbery, burglary, and piracy. It helps if you bring all the information to the table so that people can make up their own minds.

      Finally, just to give a more useful definition, I'll quote from *the source* for the English language and leave you with the appropriate Oxford English Dictionary's definition of stealing (theft being the "act of stealing"): "take (another's property) illegally or without right or permission, esp. in secret".

      Personally I think the existing copyright system in the US is out of whack. I'd prefer one of the older systems, such as 26 years for a copyright with a renewal of 26 years going automatically to the original authors/musicians/etc. Let 'works for hire' run a flat 50 years. Let the copyrights tilt back towards a more reasonably balance between creators/copyright holders and the public at large.

      --
      "All the darkness in the world can not quench the light of one small candle."
    3. Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man? by michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They're all information. Different types of information are valuable for different reasons - some may entertain, some may educate, and so on - but they're all information.

      The key factor that distinguishes information from almost anything else is that it cannot be taken - sharing increases the world's pool of information, without bound. Economists call this "excludable" vs. "non-excludable" - my use of your car excludes you from using it, my use of your song does not. That's why using your song isn't theft - it isn't possible to "deprive the rightful owner of the same".

      There are different ways to manage excludable resources. One way is to create the concept of ownership and enforce it through laws. Another way is to hold all property in common. There are blends, such as societies where mobile property is held privately but the land is held in common. None of these has really been proven to be better than others. Similarly there are different ways to manage non-excludable resources. But excludable and non-excludable resources are fundamentally very different, and making leaps of logic like "we do X for cars, therefore X is the best way to handle songs" is not a good argument.

      It's a matter of opinion to say that creative works should be treated differently from facts. In the U.S., commercial database vendors [vendors of information, not vendors of database software] are trying to change U.S. copyright law to protect facts. If the law is changed so that saying "The Yankees won today's game, 6-5" is illegal - which is literally what they're trying to do - will you still feel that the law aligns with your moral feelings?

      Most artists *don't* want to get paid. They want lots of people to experience and appreciate their work, which is rewarding beyond money. Most singers, most painters, most writers, never get paid a cent for their art and are perfectly happy with that situation.

      I'll just close by noting that all intellectual property is recent - none of it existed before the 1700's. We did acceptably well without intellectual property - had the golden ages of Rome and Greece and China, had the Renaissance, etc. Last night I attended an Indigo Girls concert in Radio City Music Hall. Since my seat in the Hall is an excludable resource, I paid for the privilege of occupying it. The Indigo Girls will still be able to profit from concerts *no matter what* society does with non-excludable resources.

    4. Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man? by dubl-u · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In this example "forgery" serves the same purpose as "copyright violation".

      This is a false analogy. Forgery increases the amount of money relative to the amount of goods, making everybody's money worth less. Each forged bill in effect steals a tiny amount of money from every other bill out there.

      Forgery is more equivalent to spam clogging the backbones and mail servers. One spam doesn't really hurt anybody, but when they reach a substantial percentage of traffic, then they cost everyone.

    5. Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man? by elflord · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is a false analogy. Forgery increases the amount of money relative to the amount of goods, making everybody's money worth less. Each forged bill in effect steals a tiny amount of money from every other bill out there.

      Exactly the same applies to copyright enfringement and the artists labor. Each act of copyright infringement is an attack on the artists compensation. It undermines the artists ability to obtain compensation for the workk, because it creates the possibility that those who would be willing to pay the artist to obtain the work will not.

      Ultimately, it costs everyone, because the people who commit copyright infringement are effectively being subsidised by those who pay for the copyrighted work. There are two possible outcomes: either these people end up paying more, or the availability of material is compromised.

    6. Re:Are you a legal man, or a moral man? by dubl-u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh, that still doesn't make the forgery analogy right, other than as a scare tactic.

      I agree that we should find a scheme to compensate artists fairly. But current copyright law is just a game we all agree to play, not something that Jehovah handed down. Even the current copyright laws create, "the possibility that those who sould be willing to pay the artist to obtain the work will not." Consider the library, for example. Or listening to music on the radio. Or a friend who lends you an album. All perfectly legal, and all create that possibility.

      I think the current system is flawed, and I think the ability of the record companies to buy the legislation they like undermines the democratic process so severely that I could see why some people believe civil disobedience is the only route to pressuring the record companies. Personally, I pay for all my music, but the argument on the other side isn't absurd.

  20. Re:Let's be reasonable by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Just because you haven't been provided with a service doesn't give you the right to illegially obtain it through other means."

    In the same vein, just because the internet could be used for piracy, doesn't mean you have the right to call me a crook and try to take my rights away.

    At this point, it's a question of mroality vs. legality. Am I right? Probably not. Do have a conscience about it? I used to until they tried to turn my computer into a set-top box.

    Frankly, I have 0 sympathy for an industry that thinks it should take my rights away when I don't agree with it's ancient business model anymore.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  21. Re:A little late... by John_Booty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i think Taco's point was that he doesn't particularly care if that makes him a criminal. asking it as an afterthought like that indicates his disdain for/lack of caring about the MPAA and the various bullshit laws that have been passed regarding content. duh.

    --

    OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
  22. Re:Can't save it? by schon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How are they preventing you from saving it?

    As you mentioned, they're doing streaming HTTP, which Real won't save, and they have some very good techs who have made it as difficult as possible to connect with a non-Real client.. (I'm sure it's possible, but I gave up on that route)

    it wouldn't be that hard to record the stream on a network level. As I understand it, you can rig squid to cache realplayer

    Yes, this would work, but it would be kind of like using a sledgehammer to swat a mosquito..

    A better solution is epoxy, which I used on Movie88 with great success.

  23. Re:Does this make you a Criminal ? Yes of course. by ichimunki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, you're wrong. But that's okay. You're also a coward.

    Put aside your lame "intellectual property" bias for two seconds, and you'll realize that the viewer in this case committed no crime. Copyright law restricts the transmission of works, not the reception thereof. You might argue, in this case, that the viewer is making an unauthorized duplication, but if the bits are streamed then no duplication is made... this is essentially a broadcast. If I set up a radio station and play only infringing materials over the air, the listeners are not guilty of a crime.

    --
    I do not have a signature
  24. Re:Let's be reasonable by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I'd like to have a car for under $1000, and since this is not offered, I should be able to steal one, right?"

    If it cost a car manufacture $100 total, including labor and all that jazz, how would you feel about them trying to sell it to you for $20,000? The MPAA could easily provide Film88's service, but they won't for incredibly petty reasons.

    You guys are seriously misinterpreting me here. Im not saying 'break the law when you disagree', Im saying "Hey look, I'm paying money to watch a movie on the web. Too bad the people who made the movie aren't getting that money when they could be." That's a little different than saying "Well I'm going to download movies from Kazaa for free instead."

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  25. Re:Does this make you a Criminal ? Yes of course. by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmmm, what about that Egyptian cleric who the BSA convinced to announce software piracy is the 'worst kind of crime?' I wonder what he'd say about this.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  26. Re:Let's be reasonable by Zordak · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason they are different than Blockbuster is that Blockbuster is paying a premium price for those videos so that they can rent out (I'm not sure if it's a flat price up front or a per-use royalty, but they are definitely paying extra). This is the same reason that you cannot buy a bunch of videos yourself and legally rent them out. Right or wrong, that is the way the law is written, so until they have royalty contracts in place with the distributors, they are breaking (U.S.) law. If you do not like the law, write lots of letters to your congress persons and encourage all of your friends to do the same (NOTE: if you are not over 18, don't bother. You will be ignored. If you are over 18, you will probably be ignored anyway, but at least you did your duty as a Citizen).

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  27. Re:Let's be reasonable by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *Sigh* I think in the effort for everybody to prove me wrong (funny how Slashdot works like that), what I'm saying's being twisted.

    I'm not complaining about the cost of DVD's. I own quite a few DVD's actually. That's not my complaint at all. Nope. 0. Zilch.

    There are movies I'd prefer to rent. Renting, though, can be a hassle. This is especially true since I'm a pedestrian and don't want to walk 20 minutes 1 way to Blockbuster. I'd rather rent over the internet. My willingness to pay $1 as opposed to downloading the movie for free on Kazaa proves that my intentions are good. Heck, I today pay more than that, I'm a subscriber to www.intertainer.tv. (I think they're legit with the MPAA, btw... not sure tho.)

    You can say I'm 'rationalizing theft' all you want, the truth of the matter is that I'm a consumer willing to spend money to meet my needs. Do business with me if you want my money.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  28. Re:Well hmm. by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'll have to check it out and give it a try.. Theres some newer movies recently released I'd like to take a look at.

    I still have some downloads from when they were at movie88.com (they used HTTP streaming with Apache, not RTSP streaming with RealServer, so capturing the streams was trivial). They're typically encoded at 320x240, and their DVD rips were usually open-captioned (English voice, English captions...that makes a whole lot of sense). If it's something you can't get any other way, it might be worth archiving. Otherwise, keep looking.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  29. But is it really stealing? by jcsehak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thievery is when you take something from someone and they don't have it anymore, since you stole it. This is clearly morally and legally wrong. The taking of information is a much more grey area though. If I download Eminem's latest CD, rather than buy it at the store, is it stealing? Maybe--Eminem is out (a potential) $15. What if I download his CD, and can honestly say I wouldn't buy it, even if it wasn't on p2p? Well, in that case, he lost nothing and gained a listener. What if I've got $15 to spend and I pirate 3 different CDs, and buy the one I like the best? How about after hearing those CDs, I decide I just have to own 2 of them, and I scrounge up $30?

    It's not a clear cut moral issue. What it really comes down to is this: are the labels and movie studios losing money due to piracy? All available evidence points to the notion that they're profiting from it. So far, that is. I figure the *AAs are working so hard to prevent piracy out of a (reasonable) fear that it will get out of hand and later on they will lose a lot of money from it. But until I see any evidence that piracy hurts the content distributers, I'll "pirate" with a clear conscience. And even after that, I'll buy from the musician-owned labels first.

    I expect that Film88 buys DVDs, rips them, then streams them. So they have stolen nothing. What they are doing is circumventing the MPAA's business model, which may or may not be morally wrong, but it falls quite outside of "theft." We need new terms and new legislation to appropriately deal with this sort of thing.

    --

    c-hack.com |
  30. Re:3 words by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 3

    Riight. I am going to go to all the trouble of setting up a swiss bank account just so I can spend one or none dollars to watch illegal movies from Iran. I can think of all but nobody that would do that.

  31. Re:Let's be reasonable by leucadiadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "In the same vein, just because the internet could be used for piracy, doesn't mean you have the right to call me a crook and try to take my rights away."

    It's not a question of could be used. It is being used for piracy.

    And last time I checked neither you nor anyone else has the right to steal. So no one is taking your "rights" away.

    The parent post is entirely correct. If you want a service someone is not currently providing with their property, start your own service and negotiate the use of their property. This is like saying, hey I want a cab ride to the airport and the cab driver will not drive that far out of his area, screw him I'll just take his cab and use it anyway. But of course I'll leave him money for gas (as if that makes everything OK).

  32. Oh, bull. by oGMo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Content that would not exist in a world without copyrights.

    This is just crap. Ever hear of Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven? They're these old dead guys who used to write some tunes. A lot of them, in fact. They even got paid for it. And they didn't have copyrights.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    1. Re:Oh, bull. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ummmm, in the days of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven they didn't have recording media and the world's largest distribution network. Kind of an apples to oranges comparison, bro...

  33. Re:3 words by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are other places around the world to get visa credit cards. You just fill out paperwork, and transfer money. And you get a debit card that works everywhere visa is accepted. Maybe you want to have some money laid away that nobody can touch? How about moving money around that doesnt have to be reported to the state and federal agencies?

    Maybe you just want some privacy? Why does every american think they cant have privacy, and must report every action to some big brother agency. Privacy is not Illegal, and its not a damn terrorist act to have privacy.

  34. Here we go again... by AKAJack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not an original argument so I'll post my own words (originally from January of this year.)

    They may not have had legal copyrights, but they had methods to protect their music.

    Before copyright there were other ways to protect work. Mozart had a patron, Baroness von Waldstätten, who underwrote his needs so that he could spend the day doing whatever he wanted.

    Because Mozart's patron allowed his music to be freely performed does not mean that it was always that way. Kings and princes always had court composers and they jealously guarded their music.

    Handel's patron (George I, the first of the Hanoverian kings) jealously guarded "water music."

    Please remember at the time you couldn't "copy" music unless you could sit in the audience with a quill pen and follow along! Actually Mozart could do this, but not many others.

    It was easy to protect music back then and hard to steal it. Don't think people wouldn't have if they could. The technology didn't exist.

    Jump ahead to the 1890's where the rampant bootleging of sheet music was a huge business (please refer to http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/09/mann.htm )

    From the above article a reference to Sullivan of Gilbert and Sullivan fame:

    "The irate Sullivan filed lawsuit after lawsuit in U.S. courts, but only dented the trade. To prevent the pirating of The Pirates of Penzance, he long refused to publish the score; bouncers prowled every show to stop music thieves from writing down the melodies."

    Let's face it, in U.S. society you are not going to do much with out being paid for it. So change the law, but until then buy what you use, or move to Canada where it is apparently legal now. (Yes, I know the original author lives there, I'm speaking to everyone else.)

    Society values artistic works and society (Through the govenment) grants the creators a limited license to profit from their works in order to better society. That's the theory anyway. Maybe it's gotten out of hand, but the "music and information want to be free" approach doesn't really motivate humans to create great things.

    Even throughout history people like Mozart have been motivated by "compensation" to produce new creative works.

    Having people enjoy what you do is great, but even if they enjoy it how do you make a living if you can't sell it? If you sell one song to a company for a million dollars and that company sells two million copies of the song for one dollar each that is motivation for you to write more songs and for the company to buy more from you. If the company buys the same song and only sells one thousand copies at one dollar each, but later discovers two million copies have been made for free they are motivated to only pay you five hundred dollars for your next song, or to ask society to grant them a limited right to distribute your song, and the protection from counterfeits of your song.

    So somebody loses. Either you no longer can make a living writing songs and you find other work, or the company lays off staff because they don't need a big distribution network anymore to deliver one thousand copies of a new song.

    While you seem to have "higher ideals" about what is right and wrong it doesn't play in reality. Your carpenter analogy is flawed because I can't easily duplicate the house with little or no effort. If I could then you better believe the carpenter would want $5 for every night you spend in your new house because a new house would only be worth a few thousand dollars! There would also be much fewer carpenters who could make a living building houses (sort of like few musicians who can fully support themselves only selling songs.)

    While IP has always been created through time it has always been protected by rule, religion, or force. People didn't share fire - they stole it from each other. The Egyptians didn't give their knowledge of mummification away to anyone that asked. The Library of Alexandria (aka "The Kings Library") wasn't a place you or I could lend a book from. Knowledge really was power. Ptolemy III paid the sum of fifteen talents of silver (a vast amount) to be allowed to copy the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.

    So while the ancient scholars and composers may not have had our modern day protection of copyright, please don't confuse that with no protection at all.

  35. Re:IRaN?! by WowTIP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uhm... get your countries straight. Afaik no one has made any (official) connection between these terrorists and Iran. I am personally pretty sick of the whole mid east getting the blame for extremists actions just because they share almost the same religion. Would you like if some people in another country with the same religion as you made some bad things, and the next moment everyone were expecting you to blow up stuff or shoot people, just because you are christian/jewish/buddhist/whatever.

    --

    --

    "I'm surfin the dead zone
    In the twilight, unknown"
  36. Actually.... by cscx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Umm... it's not necessarily coming from IRAN...
    (this is harry potter...)

    Proto Local Address Foreign Address State
    TCP fred:2174 customer.redbus.trueserver.nl:http ESTABLISHED

  37. Re:Let's be reasonable by isorox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ummm, first sale rights (which are being eroded) still give me the right so
    1) buy a video from the store for $15
    2) lend said video for $5 to a friend overnight, providing I dont retain any copys of said video
    3) get said video back off friend, lend to another friend for $5
    4) after doing this 20 times, sell video for $5.

    If my friend copies the video I lend them, they are infringing on copyright - not me.

    This is no different, providing the content provider has at least 1 copy of the video for each copy they are streaming.

    They can sell it cheaper then blockbuster because:
    1) They rent the movie for 90 minutes. Then they can rent it again. A 90 minute movie can be let upto 16 times a day, providing the times its let out are right (note this doesnt mean they can let 16 copys of the movie out at once for each copy they own)
    2) They dont have as many monkeys behind the counter trying to upsell you popcorn
    3) No high street costs
    4) No tapes going missing
    5) Minimal overheads

    Only major expenses are
    1) Streaming servers
    2) Bandwidth

    I agreee that this site may not have a copy of the movie for each copy it streams out at once, but it doesnt mean the principal is wrong.

  38. Good Point! by kaladorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even though it is OT. :)

    It'd be nice if people could recognize fringe thinking and radical groups as distinct from the main body of the people in a given area. This kind of muddy thinking could have everyone thinking that anyone from Arkansas in inbred, anyone from the Midwest is some sort of pseudo-skinhead militia nut, or that anyone from the American South must believe in Slavery. Or that all Canadians are polite.

    The truth is: Generalizations suck. They are automatically problematic when used to describe humans. And when you start treating everyone who has the same facial geometry and skin tone the same (shades of the bad old days long, we had hoped, gone by), you automatically start tossing out the baby with the bathwater, the bad with the good. You do a disservice to a lot of innocent, hard working folks and at the same time you probably focus on one threat vector or problem group and in so doing make it more liely you'll miss others.

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  39. Re:Semantics.... by jcsehak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You are not a "thief" or a "pirate" perhaps, but you are still morally wrong. It is their movie, to be distributed and sold as they please, at the price they want

    I see your point when it relates to any artist alive today, or any label who bought the rights to an artist's work and needs to make a return on their investment (even if they screw the artist out of all their royalties in the process), but what if the people who invested time and/or money into the creation of the work are all long gone? For instance, I would love to set up a site where people could download mp3s of old blues tunes. These songs are hard to find, and much of the time you have to buy a whole CD to get the one song you want to hear. This can get very expensive. Now, the original artists are all long dead and for the most part have no kin to speak of. The original record companies who pressed the 78s so long ago are for the most part long gone bust, and sold their rights for a song to whatever major labels own them today. This is maybe the first pure american music, and most of it's not getting heard, in the name of power, control and money. What's more, musicians all over the world are unable to hear many songs that would inspire them to make more music of their own. The way I see it, it's immoral not to spread these recordings to as many people as possible.

    --

    c-hack.com |
  40. Re:Let's be reasonable by analog_line · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't care if you have "0 sympathy" for anyone. The fact remains that you are breaking the law. Period. End of story. That makes you, under any definition I've seen of the word, a criminal. If you feel you have some moral authority to be a criminial, you can go on believing that and doing whatever the hell you want to do. Be my guest. However, don't be suprised if the companies whos legal rights you're infriging upon with your crime do their best to protect those rights. Kill or be killed, and you're an idiot if you believe the MPAA will or should just lie down and take it. It's their right and priviledge to fight like a mad dog for whatever they want, same as you.

    Just don't try and spin your attitude toward this as some kind of passive resistance crap for the good of us all. It's very plain to me, and to the rest of the people reading this, that your motives in this matter are purely out of base self interest. You want your movies for cheap and if they aren't provided that way, by the gods you're going to make your own way to them. Learn a bit of self control. How about getting up the courage to actually not see whatever blockbuster movie the studios you hate so much are putting out. That hurts them far more in the end than you pirating. Sacrifice. It's a part of life.

    Of course, neither those idiots like you, nor the MPAA appear to be familliar with the concept, so we're going to have to struggle with the karma your greed saddles all of us with. Thanks a bunch, pal.

  41. Re:Let's be reasonable by dubl-u · · Score: 3, Insightful

    he'll nick it from the factory, so nobody really loses out, and Mercedes-Benz have insurance

    Insurance rates are just loss rates spread out over large groups. In the physical world, there is still a loss that is not necessarily present with information. Otherwise libaries would have been outlawed long ago for freely giving out valuable copyrighted information.

    Nice try, though.